Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!grout From: grout@cadillac.cad.mcc.com (Steve Grout) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.lsi,comp.lsi.cad,sci.electronics Subject: A MODIFIED Call for discussion - Proposed VHDL News Group Message-ID: Date: 30 May 89 19:06:29 GMT References: <1989Mar10.173308.549@utzoo.uucp> Sender: news@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM Organization: MCC CAD Program, Austin, Texas. Lines: 117 CC: liaisons-only,lfs@ibm.com,agilman,randyharr,rwaxman,jhines, hcarter,phunter,jwillner Xref: utzoo news.groups:9850 comp.lsi:737 comp.lsi.cad:181 sci.electronics:6350 The 'Call for discussion - Proposed VHDL News Group' several months ago resulted in the following summarized responses. There was really not a lot of inputs. Those that did respond either voted for the subject proposal or felt that creation of such a newsgroup at this time was not per normal practices for USENET.. In view of these inputs and below specific inputs and in looking over the existing newsgroups, I would am modifying my proposal as follows: o Old proposal - creation of 'comp.vhdlrrandyharr,rwaxman,jhines, hcarter,phunter,jwillner The 'Call for discussion - Proposed VHDL News Group' several months ago resulted in the following summarized responses. There was really not a lot of inputs. Those that did respond either voted for the subject proposal or felt that creation of such a newsgroup at this time was not per normal practices for USENET.. In view of these inputs and below specific inputs and in looking over the existing newsgroups, I would am modifying my proposal as follows: o Old proposal - creation of 'comp.vhdl with anticipated subgroups below it. o NEW PROPOSAL - creation of comp.lang.vhdl as a subgroup below the existing comp.lang series (comp.ada, comp.c, comp.c++, comp.lisp, etc.) This writer would like to note that the inputs about a specific newsgroup for vhdl as being premature are reasonable especially in light of USENET practices and in view of modest number of messages currently showing up in places like comp.lsi. ...BUT it should also be noted that VHDL is ALREADY an IEEE standard, already required for ALL integrated circuits (ASICS, etc.) in that you MUST create WORKING vhdl descriptions for all levels that you specify your ASIC designs, with PC board level etc of design waiting only for VHDL models to become more widely available before VHDL will be required at all levels of electronics/electrical design. That is certainly the intent and activity of the DoD/Triservices and most the rest of the electronics industry. There are already even several cases where contractors have be required to go back and create vhdl descriptions. The VHDL analyzers/compilers/simulators exist with some 7 tools on the street with several more ready to ship in the next quarter or so. The problem tho will be in educating designers on effectively creating of good vhdl descriptions. The subject proposed newsgroup it is felt anticipates the specific need of a vhdl USENET forum. It would seem that if we don't at this time form a vhdl-specific newsgroup, the current natural newsgroups to be used are comp.lsi and comp.lsi.cad. The problem is that these two newsgroup indicate a 'LSI' or integrated circuit focus, whereas VHDL is really not aimed only at that class of electronic circuits and systems. Therefore, the proposed 'comp.lang.vhdl' is offered as a compromise to the several objections but definitely ahead of there being any large volume of news yet. This writer also urges that the related EDIF newsgroup proposal likewise be modified to reflect 'comp.lang.edif' as being appropriate within current newsgroup practises. YOUR comments and discussion on this modified proposal are requested, both for and against... In the meantime, we should continue our vhdl related discussions under comp.lsi, comp.lsi.cad, and comp.org.ieee as may be appropriate. Again, thanks for all your inputs!.... --Steve Grout ------------------------ summarized vhdl newsgroup inputs.... ------------ NO - rja: Felt we should instead use comp.lang.vhdl as more natural wrt to existing newsgroups. YES BUT ...!sun!sunburn!dover!waters (Mike Waters): agreed with proposal but felt it should be called something like comp.std.vhdl. This person had earlier posted a call for discussion wrt an EDIF, a standard notation dominantly focused on the physical level of electronics. NO - chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg): felt a mailing list should be used first as per normal procedures and therefore the proposal was premature. YES - amc!markf@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Freeman): agreed with comp.vhdl name as well. YES - milano!nluug.nl!htsa!cees@cs.utexas.edu (Cees Keyer): agreed. YES - hundt@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas M. Hundt): agreed. NO - Martyn Thomas : Felt that vhdl should be handled by other newsgroups until volume required splitting it out. YES - Thomas Kropf Universitaet Karlsruhe : agreed. YES - kagenski@apollo.com: agreed.o NO - Zenier: Felt we should setup comp.cad first, then wait until VHDL is needed. ----------------- end vhdl newsgroup inputs summary ----------------------- -- Steve Grout, MCC CAD Program | Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 ARPA: grout@mcc.com | Phone: [512] 338-3516 UUCP: {uunet,harvard,gatech,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!grout